
Ford Mustang GTDs Could Cost More Than $600,000 When All Is Said and Done
The fastest American car to ever loop the Nürburgring might also be among the most expensive ones to do so. According to one would-be owner of the upcoming Ford Mustang GTD, what was originally billed as a $325,000 car may actually end up costing double that once everything is said and done.
On a recent episode of The Smoking Tire podcast, the GTD breaking its own sub-seven-minute lap of the Green Hell became a topic of discussion. However, co-host Matt Farah had additional eye-popping news to share about the monster pony car. As he explains at the 59:35 mark, a collector he met during a motoring club event expressed some distress regarding his Mustang GTD order.
'He was very concerned about his GTD order because what he was told originally would be about a $300,000 car with the options and the track aero kit and all the things you get … the final number started with a six,' said Farah. He further quoted the buyer as saying, 'Shit, I might be tapped out …'
When Ford opened the application process for the Mustang GTD last spring, the listed MSRP was $300,000. By the summer, that figure rose to $325,000. Nevertheless, more than 7,500 handraisers signed up for the 1,000 or so build slots (yup, the production number has moved, too). An 8% price increase was likely of little concern to the ultra-high net worth individuals who made GTD reservations. But a 100% price hike? That's a final bill discrepancy that would floor almost anyone. Chris Tsui
To be fair, the Mustang GTD is a limited-production hi-po machine, so, of course, owners are going to want to make their particular purchase as exclusive as possible. For example, although the GTD is available in six standard colors, an 'Exclusive Extended Color Palette Lock-Out Option' does two things: open up thousands of other paint finishes, but also 'locks' that color exclusively for that particular owner.
This means first-come, first-served dibs for your choice of finish, but not without paying a handsome fee for the privilege. I mean, if a two-tone roof on a Subaru Forester or Nissan Kicks can set you back $890 and $800, respectively, then a similar, proportional markup for the mighty GTD could easily be in the five figures. And that's just for a color option.
Check the boxes on anything and everything else, and well, the dollar signs will add up. If this collector is to be believed, either the add-on parts and packages are ridiculously priced, or the cost of production has increased in unexpected ways—the Mustang GTD is built by Multimatic in Canada, after all.
As Farah points out later in the podcast, though, 'Don't necessarily hold me to this. This is a conversation I had with one collector.' And, true, one person's purchase experience isn't representative of everyone else's. But who knows? Things costing way more than expected seems to be a persistent, universal experience these days. We wouldn't be surprised if other GTD owners are in a similar situation. In any case, Mustang GTD production is scheduled to start this spring.
Are you a GTD allocation holder facing a bigger bill than expected? Get in touch here: tips@thedrive.com
Beverly Braga has enjoyed an eventful career as a Swiss Army knife, having held roles as an after-school teacher, film critic, PR manager, transcriber, and video producer – to name a few. She is currently a communications consultant and freelance writer whose work has appeared in numerous outlets covering automotive, entertainment, lifestyle, and food & beverage. Beverly grew up in Hawaii but roots for Washington, D.C., sports teams.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Is Tesla (TSLA) Stock Worth Buying The Dip? What Analysts Are Saying
Tesla is struggling against declining demand for its cars, falling profitability and the tarnished ... More reputation of its leader. Tesla has been a solid growth stock for years, delivering 10-year average returns over 35%—albeit with extreme volatility along the way. The stock's 2025 pullback could be another temporary dip, or it could signal a less profitable future for the EV maker. Let's review the key details, including financial performance and what analysts say, to determine if it's time to buy the dip on TSLA. At the end of May, Tesla's stock price is up 100% over the past 12 months but down about 11.6% year-to-date. TSLA peaked this year above $420 in mid-January, before falling below $215 in early April. Since that trough, the stock has made a rough climb upward to its current trading price of about $358. The first step in deciding whether to buy the dip on Tesla is understanding the company's fundamentals. You can get a sense of how the company performs by analyzing vehicle delivery reports, revenue composition and trends, margins, earnings and free cash flow. Tesla reports delivered and produced vehicles after the close of each quarter. Deliveries are cars transferred to customers, for which Tesla has recognized revenue. Production units are cars manufactured in the quarter. The report breaks out the data for Models 3 and Y in one line and all other models in a second line. These numbers are watched closely because they provide a first look at Tesla's quarterly vehicle revenue and manufacturing activity. Sometimes the report includes commentary on relevant factors such as production downtime. Tesla reports three revenue segments: automotive, energy generation/storage and services/other. Over the last year, the composition of revenue by segment was: Automotive revenues come from vehicle sales, leases and the sale of regulatory tax credits to other manufacturers. Tesla receives the credits free and resells them, which provides a nice revenue and profit boost. The resulting revenue is significant, totaling $595 million in the first quarter 2025. Notably, Tesla's net income in the quarter was $409 million, so the regulatory credit revenue essentially kept the company from posting a loss. Looking more broadly, Tesla's total revenue in the first quarter declined from the prior-year period, primarily due to lower auto sales. Energy and services revenues increased on a year-over-year basis. In 2021 and 2022, Tesla enjoyed a higher-than-average operating margin for an automaker. The double-digit margin gave Tesla the freedom to cut its car prices to protect market share. The strong profitability also partly supported Tesla's high valuation relative to its car-making peers. Recent earnings reports show the big margin may be slipping away. Tesla's first-quarter 2025 operating margin was 2.1%, versus 5.5% in the prior-year period. For the trailing 12 months (TTM), the margin was 7.29%. For context, Ford's TTM operating margin was 2.40% and GM's was 6.54%. Tesla has been profitable since 2020 when it reported GAAP EPS of $0.21. By 2023, the EV maker had grown its EPS to $4.30. The next year, earnings fell significantly to $2.04. Tesla's first quarter 2025 non-GAAP EPS was $0.27, down 40% from the prior-year period. Between 2021 and 2024, Tesla produced between $3.5 billion and $7.5 billion in free cash flow annually. 2024 was the lowest free cash flow year in that span. The downturn was related to an inventory increase and high-dollar AI investments in the first quarter. Tesla's first quarter 2025 free cash flow was $664 million. This compared very favorably to the negative $2.5 billion in free cash flow posted in the first quarter 2024. Several factors have contributed to TSLA's 2025 dip, including: reports 41 analyst ratings for Tesla, broken down as: The consensus price target is $293.97, which is about 18% below the stock's current trading price of $358. The highest price target is $500, and the lowest is $19.05. If you remove both of those extremes, the average price target is still less than $300. Here's what it comes down to: Those who believe in Tesla project a 12-month stock price between $350 and $450. Another group of analysts who think Tesla is fairly priced in the $150 to $275 range. Buying the dip means investing in a stock when the price is temporarily low. The rationale is that a lower buy-in price reduces downside and increases profits—that is, assuming the stock will rebound. It's like buying a stock on sale. This practice is possible because investors tend to overreact. A negative headline or two can send a stock price tumbling, even when the company's fundamentals are unchanged. Identifying these oversold situations can prove beneficial for your bottom line. To demonstrate, let's say Tesla ends the year at $395 per share. If you buy the dip at $358, your position will be up about 10% at year-end. If you wait until Tesla rebounds to $390—where it started the year—your year-end unrealized gain is much lower at 1.3%. The risk of buying the dip is that the expected stock price rebound will never materialize. Existing or new problems for Tesla could hold the stock price lower. Potential issues include: Any one of these could push investors and analysts to reset their outlooks on Tesla. The reset could be temporary or longer-term, depending on the underlying circumstances. You may want to buy the dip on Tesla if all the following are true: Bottom Line Tesla is struggling against declining demand for its cars, falling profitability and the tarnished reputation of its leader. U.S. policy changes may also force the company to manage its domestic EV and energy businesses without the benefit of tax credits for itself and its customers. That could spell a rocky future, at least until Tesla finds a sure and profitable path in AI-driven autonomous vehicles. Buy the dip on Tesla only if you can handle surprises and an uncertain future. If you can't, consider sitting this one out. For other investing ideas, see best stocks for 2025.


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
NASCAR Power Rankings: Kyle Larson unseated at the top after Nashville
Cup teams are getting their last chances to race on intermediate-style tracks, ones that are more than 1 mile and have moderate banking. They are coming off four races at those tracks (Texas, Kansas, Charlotte and Nashville) and then have upcoming races at Michigan (this weekend) and Pocono (in three weeks following Mexico City). So the drivers who have been strong in the last month very well could be the ones who thrive in the playoffs, which has one intermediate-track race in each of the first three rounds. That said, here are this week's power rankings following Ryan Blaney's victory at Nashville: Dropped out: Alex Bowman (LW: 8) On the verge: Bowman, Chris Buescher, Kyle Busch, Austin Cindric, Erik Jones, Bubba Wallace 10. Chase Briscoe (Last Week: 7) Briscoe has won back-to-back poles but saw a two-race streak of top-5 finishes end as he placed 17th at Nashville. The Joe Gibbs Racing driver led 51 laps Sunday. 9. Joey Logano (LW: NR) Maybe a little overshadowed by Blaney's win was another top-5 finish from a Team Penske driver. Joey Logano finished fourth for his third top-10 finish in his last four starts. 8. Ross Chastain (LW: 9) It wasn't a win but an 11th-place finish at Nashville was respectable. He is showing better speed as he started fifth. The Trackhouse driver has moved up to ninth in the standings. 7. Tyler Reddick (LW: 10) Reddick finished second in the opening stage (thanks to some pit strategy) and wound up ninth at Nashville. A ninth might not sound great, but it was the best finish for the 23XI Racing driver in his last six starts. 6. Chase Elliott (LW: 6) It was a meh day at Nashville for Elliott, who finished 15th. And yet he is still fifth in the standings as he consistently is finishing races — he hasn't placed worse than 20th all year. He has just one top-5 finish, though, in his last seven starts. 5. Christopher Bell (LW: 3) Bell was involved in a wreck on Lap 119 and still came back to finish 10th. Finishes such as that amid some adversity is why people think this Joe Gibbs Racing driver can vie for the championship again. 4. Denny Hamlin (LW: 4) Hamlin led 79 laps and finished third at Nashville in a race where he started on the front row. The JGR driver won the opening stage and stayed up front for most of the night. 3. Ryan Blaney (LW: 5) Finally! A win for Blaney, who has had five finishes of 25th or worse and now six top-5 finishes on the year. The Penske driver led a race-high 139 laps at Nashville. 2. Kyle Larson (LW: 1) Larson had a tough day at Nashville, his second consecutive frustrating Cup weekend. He finished this one, though, and ended up eighth as he and the team were able to improve on the car throughout the event. 1. William Byron (LW: 2) Byron finished fifth at Nashville but moves into the No. 1 spot as he was fourth in the first stage and second in the second stage — and ran among the leaders for much of the night, maybe not as much as a week earlier at Charlotte but he continues to show he's a threat and a driver they will have to beat. Bob Pockrass covers NASCAR and IndyCar for FOX Sports. He has spent decades covering motorsports, including over 30 Daytona 500s, with stints at ESPN, Sporting News, NASCAR Scene magazine and The (Daytona Beach) News-Journal. Follow him on Twitter @bobpockrass.


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
EVs Are Rewiring Risk For Manufacturers
The internal combustion engine (ICE) has been steadily improving for more than 100 years, giving us cars that are almost unrecognisable from those early, groundbreaking days of the Ford Model T. This, in turn, has made driving a faster, safer, more fuel-efficient, and more enjoyable experience for everyone. Now electric vehicles (EVs) mark a fundamental shift. One that not only paves the way to innovative changes in how passenger vehicles are designed, built, and maintained, but that will also kickstart a whole new era of risk for manufacturers. Driving this transformation are three key factors, the first of which is consumer dynamics. To date, EV adoption has actually been slower than many projected with only a quarter of car buyers seriously considering going fully electric due to concerns around cost, range and charging time. This has seen the manufacturing industry double down on addressing these concerns with new models that travel further and charge faster. The second factor is battery innovation. Right now, lithium-ion is found in 90% of US EVs, but their performance and safety features don't completely meet all customer requirements. Interest in alternative designs is therefore accelerating too – from iron- and sulphur-based lithium variants to sodium-ion and hydrogen cells. All have their own advantages and disadvantages, leading manufacturers to invest in understanding how they perform in the full life cycle of a user experience. The third and final driver of change is the supply chain itself. EVs use up to three times more chips than ICE vehicles and therefore rely heavily on materials sourced and processed overseas. China alone accounts for 70% of global battery production. Add in geopolitical volatility, tariff controversies, ongoing labor shortages, and localized incidents like the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and it's clear: EV supply chains are more stretched and unpredictable than ever – requiring flexible and proactive risk mitigation frameworks to match. There are new, less familiar threats for manufacturers to counter too. While ICE and hybrid vehicles actually catch fire more frequently, EV fires tend to burn hotter and longer – with several high-profile cases making the news and rocking consumer trust. Responding to this risk requires specialized equipment and training for staff, along with a deeper knowledge of chemistry, housing, and fire suppression. Then there's cyber. EVs are, by nature, software-defined machines that are deeply integrated with networks and cloud platforms. From code-level bugs to coordinated hacks, this opens up new areas of potential vulnerability, all capable of causing costly reputational damage and liability claims. Even product recalls are changing. In contrast to ICE vehicle breakdowns, EV issues can often be fixed with over-the-air updates and patches. Yet while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still classifies these events as recalls, the cost and customer experience are entirely different. This, in turn, forces insurers and manufacturers to re-examine the way they calculate risk along with how they structure mitigation strategies going forward. So how should the manufacturing industry respond? First and foremost, by empowering risk managers to lead in this evolving environment and become a central part of a broader, stronger, more connected ecosystem within their own companies. One that connects stakeholders across R&D, supply chain, operations, IT, and even government relations to create a comprehensive framework for analysing and responding to risk. The way manufacturers deploy data must evolve too. Unlike with ICE vehicles, firms don't have decades of EV insights to fall back on in their decision-making and planning. So instead, they should lean into forward-looking indicators, using machinery data on the shop floor to identify quality risks and limit the likelihood of product liability and recall. Leveraging smarter building data in areas like fire protection and structural soundness will also be vital, as will utilizing supply chain visibility information and scoring models for business tax. Encouragingly, much of this data is already available today; it now just needs to be viewed with a risk lens. Rather than simply present data at renewal time, manufacturers and brokers should therefore engage in an ongoing dialogue with carriers about emerging threats, evolving mitigations, and the specific steps they are taking to reduce exposure. This will help shape limits and premiums that fit the realities of their operating landscape. In fact, this ability to focus on the future is, perhaps, the most important shift of all. As EVs become an ever more frequent sight on our roads and in our factories, the passenger vehicle market will be defined by both new methods of manufacturing and new approaches to risk. The firms that lead this new era will be those with their eyes on the road ahead, not in the rear view mirror.